In other words, I am philosophically leaning toward a leftwing libertarianism / mutualism / pro-labor "front-end" schema but I am pragmatically sympathetic to progressive, re-distributive politics because my philosophical preference seems so bloody unlikely.
Or - I am still working things out, as per usual. The current system of fake privatization, crony corporatism, etc. is no good. I'd take a public library over one outsourced to a multinational corporation any day. (just as an example)
PS If I am slightly less coherent than usual it is because I am juggling these responses with a fussy baby.
Deregulatory capture seems quite likely on the other hand. Let me put it this way: while political and economic inequality remain so vast, I don't think a truly stateless or nightwatchmen state is possible. I just don't see it happening. The threat of massive back-end redistribution of resources (i.e. much of progressive politics) should inspire a move toward front-end distribution instead. Let's repeal all the anti-labor laws and completely tear down the neoliberal artifice masquerading as free trade. Until we can gather the political will to do this, we have to find other ways to ameliorate the suffering of the poor and empower the lower classes.
I understand that many libertarians hold their beliefs because they see state and corporate entanglement. But I think this discussion of inequality has shown me that many libertarians are still not aware enough of just how integral that entanglement is to the extreme levels of disparity in this country. No libertarian should be championing inequality, or championing creature comforts as illustrative of a successful middle class.
On your capitalist vs. free market question I'll have to answer later. The baby calls!
Also, this focuses a great deal on economic equality. There is a great deal of political equality that has been lost as the political equilibrium has been wildly skewed to favor the elite class.
James K - this is an excellent comment. I would say that healthcare is a much more dire problem than either housing or education (though those are indeed problems); and I think you leave out what I believe will be a serious problem in the future: retirement.
I also think there's something missing to the competition argument. After all, the American economy as a whole hasn't seen wage stagnation - only the middle and lower classes. This says something about how profits are distributed, and who is benefiting from current policies.
Thee nature of current capital/state collaboration is inherently coercive, and this goes well beyond merely buying things. I would say capitalism - not to be confused with free markets - is coercive by design.
Yes, why on earth would I post on a blog I helped start and run/edit. A better question would be whether you will ever post anything even remotely surprising or interesting. I won't hold my breath.
Really James, you can move along now. I promise you won't be missed. There's really no need to pollute this thread with complaints, condescension and ad hominem.
Trumwill - thanks for the long response. When I have a bit more time I'll follow up. I agree though - there aren't any easy answers. That's the fundamental truth of things. Whenever anyone says there are simple solutions or silver bullets you know something's up.
Well I hope it hasn't been too painful for you. Sounds really sort of terrible what you're going through. I mean, it must be to start lobbing about insults.
I guess I don't see a viable alternative. You make more money so you pay more taxes, but you also benefit more from society, will likely have more political influence than people in lower income brackets, better benefits, more expendable income, a more secure retirement. You pay more taxes but are less dependant on services the government provides.
In fact, I think if income was more equal on the front end then perhaps taxation would be less necessary. I suppose in a society where most people make about 30k a year, it"s hard to muster much sympathy for top earners who have to pay more taxes. Though to be fair there's a wide gap between the 10% mark and the top 1%.
I’m well aware that leisure items and material goods are in many ways more fun and more advanced than in the past. But this says absolutely nothing about retirement security or healthcare - two far, far more important issues. Furthermore, it doesn’t speak to the preferred changes libertarians and many conservatives would like to make which would, on sum, make retirement security even less reliable. And frankly, if left to just libertarian and conservative ideas on healthcare - without the pressure liberals place on the issue - I don’t think you’d ever see anything like healthcare security for the poor and working classes. Just look at the efforts to cut people off the Medicaid rolls across the country.
Furthermore, while this does a fine job at explaining how things have improved in society (and I don’t think most people are arguing that we should return to the 1950’s or the 1800’s - the idea of progress is well-rooted in the collective psyche) it says nothing at all about how things should have improved. Would we trade our high-tech middle-class existence for the low-tech middle-class existence of the 1950’s - maybe some die-hard nostalgiaits would, but most people would not, even if they believed that there was a crisis in the middle class. Asking to pick the present over the past and then using that as an example of how things must have improved is pretty paper-thin as far as arguments go. Nor does it say why things have gotten materially better. Perhaps some of these much-loathed government programs are to blame; and perhaps, too, the liberalization of markets and the lowering of tax rates have helped as well. Perhaps it is a very mixed bag with no simple explanation, just as the gains made across the board don’t tell the whole story either. But I suspect that the usefulness of libertarian economics has reached its peak. Civil liberty issues are the next frontier for libertarians who want to improve the lives of Americans - not attempts to privatize public libraries or fight for more tax cuts.
Anyways, this argument also says nothing about how things will be in the future if we maintain the current course. I don’t trust that the nation as a whole will be very good with its 401k investments, or that the investment bankers who just thrashed the economy will be very wise stewards of our money. Pointing out that the middle class can afford more leisure and better toys than it used to, and that we live in more material comfort, ignores the chaos in the system, the rapidly shifting industries, the rough and tumble ride that middle class workers face, and how very important things like health insurance are for people who have none, or who lose it when they lose their jobs.
Actually, I don’t think our end-goals are that much different. I just don’t believe that we can achieve a truly limited state without much greater equality. I think the game is rigged to favor the rich - even though they do pay the most taxes. They also benefit the most from public infrastructure, trade agreements, interest rates, and most other government policies. In this sense, I see why a far more limited state would actually benefit many people. The trick is getting to the limited state that actually does benefit the average citizen, rather than getting to the limited state that only benefits the very powerful and well-connected. My support for organized labor is the one thing recently that has really, radically changed about my politics. And I see organized labor as a good way to have front-end equality worked out (i.e. pre-tax equality) rather than have to handle it all on the back-end through government redistribution.
If I seem boilerplate or overly strident, it’s because I have changed my mind in two fundamental ways: one, I now believe a revival of the labor movement is essential to the process of creating a sustainable middle class; and two, while inequality in and of itself is not only not the problem but essentially inevitable, I see the inequality in this country as a symptom of structural inequities favoring the very rich. Much of this is a problem with how corporations and the government operate to benefit one another - in this sense I remain a libertarian, though I consider myself to be a left-wing libertarian due to my newfound support for labor. And last, I believe that in the interim between where we are now and the ideal we need to have programs in place that help the poor even if these are provided by the state.
And finally, I think that local government is preferable to privatization that is handled by non-local actors (most of the time, not always). As I said previously, I prefer a local public library to one run by a big corporation. I prefer a local public school to one that depends on the good graces of the Broad foundation.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “On the language of assumption”
In other words, I am philosophically leaning toward a leftwing libertarianism / mutualism / pro-labor "front-end" schema but I am pragmatically sympathetic to progressive, re-distributive politics because my philosophical preference seems so bloody unlikely.
Or - I am still working things out, as per usual. The current system of fake privatization, crony corporatism, etc. is no good. I'd take a public library over one outsourced to a multinational corporation any day. (just as an example)
PS If I am slightly less coherent than usual it is because I am juggling these responses with a fussy baby.
"
Deregulatory capture seems quite likely on the other hand. Let me put it this way: while political and economic inequality remain so vast, I don't think a truly stateless or nightwatchmen state is possible. I just don't see it happening. The threat of massive back-end redistribution of resources (i.e. much of progressive politics) should inspire a move toward front-end distribution instead. Let's repeal all the anti-labor laws and completely tear down the neoliberal artifice masquerading as free trade. Until we can gather the political will to do this, we have to find other ways to ameliorate the suffering of the poor and empower the lower classes.
On “Labor Roundtable: Dreams of a Libertarian-Labor Alliance”
I understand that many libertarians hold their beliefs because they see state and corporate entanglement. But I think this discussion of inequality has shown me that many libertarians are still not aware enough of just how integral that entanglement is to the extreme levels of disparity in this country. No libertarian should be championing inequality, or championing creature comforts as illustrative of a successful middle class.
On your capitalist vs. free market question I'll have to answer later. The baby calls!
On “The Middle Class Isn’t Dying”
Also, this focuses a great deal on economic equality. There is a great deal of political equality that has been lost as the political equilibrium has been wildly skewed to favor the elite class.
"
James K - this is an excellent comment. I would say that healthcare is a much more dire problem than either housing or education (though those are indeed problems); and I think you leave out what I believe will be a serious problem in the future: retirement.
I also think there's something missing to the competition argument. After all, the American economy as a whole hasn't seen wage stagnation - only the middle and lower classes. This says something about how profits are distributed, and who is benefiting from current policies.
On “Labor Roundtable: Dreams of a Libertarian-Labor Alliance”
Thee nature of current capital/state collaboration is inherently coercive, and this goes well beyond merely buying things. I would say capitalism - not to be confused with free markets - is coercive by design.
"
And yet we are legally obliged to recognize corporations as single units.
On “The Middle Class Isn’t Dying”
Yes, why on earth would I post on a blog I helped start and run/edit. A better question would be whether you will ever post anything even remotely surprising or interesting. I won't hold my breath.
On “Labor Roundtable: Dreams of a Libertarian-Labor Alliance”
I think Tim Carney says much the same thing here Freddie.
On “The Middle Class Isn’t Dying”
I think so too, but he came in swinging.
"
Really James, you can move along now. I promise you won't be missed. There's really no need to pollute this thread with complaints, condescension and ad hominem.
"
Trumwill - thanks for the long response. When I have a bit more time I'll follow up. I agree though - there aren't any easy answers. That's the fundamental truth of things. Whenever anyone says there are simple solutions or silver bullets you know something's up.
"
Well I hope it hasn't been too painful for you. Sounds really sort of terrible what you're going through. I mean, it must be to start lobbing about insults.
"
Well put, Pat.
"
James - if that's how you feel then really there's no reason at all for you to come back to the comments is there?
"
I guess I don't see a viable alternative. You make more money so you pay more taxes, but you also benefit more from society, will likely have more political influence than people in lower income brackets, better benefits, more expendable income, a more secure retirement. You pay more taxes but are less dependant on services the government provides.
In fact, I think if income was more equal on the front end then perhaps taxation would be less necessary. I suppose in a society where most people make about 30k a year, it"s hard to muster much sympathy for top earners who have to pay more taxes. Though to be fair there's a wide gap between the 10% mark and the top 1%.
On “Labor Roundtable: Dreams of a Libertarian-Labor Alliance”
Cosign.
On “The Middle Class Isn’t Dying”
True enough Mark, but who in this thread is resorting to that kind of argument?
"
Excellent, Mike. Very well said.
"
Jason,
I’m well aware that leisure items and material goods are in many ways more fun and more advanced than in the past. But this says absolutely nothing about retirement security or healthcare - two far, far more important issues. Furthermore, it doesn’t speak to the preferred changes libertarians and many conservatives would like to make which would, on sum, make retirement security even less reliable. And frankly, if left to just libertarian and conservative ideas on healthcare - without the pressure liberals place on the issue - I don’t think you’d ever see anything like healthcare security for the poor and working classes. Just look at the efforts to cut people off the Medicaid rolls across the country.
Furthermore, while this does a fine job at explaining how things have improved in society (and I don’t think most people are arguing that we should return to the 1950’s or the 1800’s - the idea of progress is well-rooted in the collective psyche) it says nothing at all about how things should have improved. Would we trade our high-tech middle-class existence for the low-tech middle-class existence of the 1950’s - maybe some die-hard nostalgiaits would, but most people would not, even if they believed that there was a crisis in the middle class. Asking to pick the present over the past and then using that as an example of how things must have improved is pretty paper-thin as far as arguments go. Nor does it say why things have gotten materially better. Perhaps some of these much-loathed government programs are to blame; and perhaps, too, the liberalization of markets and the lowering of tax rates have helped as well. Perhaps it is a very mixed bag with no simple explanation, just as the gains made across the board don’t tell the whole story either. But I suspect that the usefulness of libertarian economics has reached its peak. Civil liberty issues are the next frontier for libertarians who want to improve the lives of Americans - not attempts to privatize public libraries or fight for more tax cuts.
Anyways, this argument also says nothing about how things will be in the future if we maintain the current course. I don’t trust that the nation as a whole will be very good with its 401k investments, or that the investment bankers who just thrashed the economy will be very wise stewards of our money. Pointing out that the middle class can afford more leisure and better toys than it used to, and that we live in more material comfort, ignores the chaos in the system, the rapidly shifting industries, the rough and tumble ride that middle class workers face, and how very important things like health insurance are for people who have none, or who lose it when they lose their jobs.
On “Labor Roundtable: Why Market Anarchy Favors Labor”
Thanks, excellent points.
"
I don't know. Nobody has answered my concerns with the potential of a serious retirement crisis in our future.
On “The Walker Roadmap”
Sam, that's a fair critique. Sometimes I do this, though. This is hardly my first foray into over the top rhetoric.
Exhibit A
And maybe I have been a bit over the top the last few days. I'll have to think about it.
"
Agreed, Jesse. Dennis, maybe that wasn't such a terrible thing...
"
Actually, I don’t think our end-goals are that much different. I just don’t believe that we can achieve a truly limited state without much greater equality. I think the game is rigged to favor the rich - even though they do pay the most taxes. They also benefit the most from public infrastructure, trade agreements, interest rates, and most other government policies. In this sense, I see why a far more limited state would actually benefit many people. The trick is getting to the limited state that actually does benefit the average citizen, rather than getting to the limited state that only benefits the very powerful and well-connected. My support for organized labor is the one thing recently that has really, radically changed about my politics. And I see organized labor as a good way to have front-end equality worked out (i.e. pre-tax equality) rather than have to handle it all on the back-end through government redistribution.
If I seem boilerplate or overly strident, it’s because I have changed my mind in two fundamental ways: one, I now believe a revival of the labor movement is essential to the process of creating a sustainable middle class; and two, while inequality in and of itself is not only not the problem but essentially inevitable, I see the inequality in this country as a symptom of structural inequities favoring the very rich. Much of this is a problem with how corporations and the government operate to benefit one another - in this sense I remain a libertarian, though I consider myself to be a left-wing libertarian due to my newfound support for labor. And last, I believe that in the interim between where we are now and the ideal we need to have programs in place that help the poor even if these are provided by the state.
And finally, I think that local government is preferable to privatization that is handled by non-local actors (most of the time, not always). As I said previously, I prefer a local public library to one run by a big corporation. I prefer a local public school to one that depends on the good graces of the Broad foundation.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.